Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, by a common ad-interim order dated 16 May 2025, granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in two connected anticipatory bail applications, noting that the dispute primarily pertained to a Sale Deed dated 27 June 2007. The Court accepted an undertaking that the impugned Sale Deed would not be acted upon in any future proceedings.
The Court held:
“In the interest of justice considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to accept the contentions…”.
It directed the applicants to be released on bail in the event of arrest upon furnishing a PR bond of ₹50,000 with sureties, subject to conditions such as cooperating with investigation and weekly police station attendance. The matter was posted for further hearing on 30 June 2025.
Facts
- Two anticipatory bail applications were filed by the applicants fearing arrest in connection with C.R. No.138 of 2024 registered at Bundgarden Police Station, Pune.
- The FIR alleged offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The allegations stem from a Sale Deed dated 27 June 2007, allegedly executed with a forged seal/stamp of a Notary Public.
- The applicants contended that the matter was essentially civil in nature and that the Sale Deed was between the applicants and the power of attorney holder of the complainant (sister of the attorney).
- Civil Suit No.1903 of 2024, relating to the same property, is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.
- A Section 35(3) notice under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was issued on 30 July 2024, and the applicants had complied.
Issues
- Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious allegations of forgery and fraud.
- Whether the dispute was primarily civil in nature and whether it had been given a criminal colour.
- Whether the existence of a forged stamp on the Sale Deed required custodial interrogation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The applicants argued that the complaint was an abuse of process, with a civil dispute being given a criminal hue.
- It was submitted that the Notary Public whose seal/stamp was alleged to have been forged had already been granted anticipatory bail on 20 June 2024.
- Civil proceedings concerning the same Sale Deed and property were already pending.
- The applicants undertook not to rely on or act upon the impugned Sale Deed in any proceedings, stating that it had been cancelled.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The APP opposed the applications, arguing the seriousness of the allegations and ongoing investigation.
- It was contended that the notary stamp affixed bore the date 20 June 2027, although allegedly procured in 2013, indicating forgery.
- The prosecution maintained that the complainant’s rights in the property were affected and that she should be impleaded as a respondent.
Analysis of the Law
The Court recognised that criminal proceedings may not be maintainable where the underlying dispute is essentially civil. It gave weight to the fact that:
- Anticipatory bail had already been granted to the Notary Public involved.
- A civil suit regarding the same transaction was pending.
- The applicants voluntarily undertook not to act upon the Sale Deed, signalling their bona fide conduct.
This approach reflects judicial caution in matters where civil disputes are dressed as criminal offences.
Precedent Analysis
Although the Court did not cite any specific judgments, its reasoning aligns with the established principle that courts must be circumspect in entertaining criminal charges when the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and the necessary mens rea is lacking.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed:
“There is substance in the submissions of Mr. Jha… This is for the reasons more than one.”
- The Court found it significant that anticipatory bail was granted earlier to the Notary.
- It acknowledged the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same subject matter.
- The Court accepted as an undertaking the counsel’s statement that the Sale Deed would not be relied upon in any manner, including in any future proceedings.
In view of these facts, the Court granted limited protection to the applicants during pendency of the proceedings.
Conclusion
The High Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants with the following conditions:
- They shall be released on bail in the event of arrest on a PR bond of ₹50,000 with sureties.
- They shall attend Bundgarden Police Station every Monday at 11:30 a.m. until further orders.
- They must furnish and update residential and contact details with the police.
- They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
The order is stated to be prima facie and shall not affect the merits of the case.
Implications
- The order reiterates judicial reluctance to allow criminal prosecution for disputes that appear civil in nature, especially where parallel civil proceedings exist.
- The Court’s acceptance of an undertaking not to act upon the document in question indicates a practical resolution balancing the interests of justice with investigative needs.
- The impleadment of the complainant ensures that her rights are protected in further proceedings.
- The case also reflects the interface between newly enacted provisions of the BNSS and anticipatory bail jurisprudence.